Microfiche records prior to 2006 have not been completely digitized and may not be available yet on PRO. If you can not find what you are looking for please submit a records request.
Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: RESUBMITTAL - GRADING ALL
Permit Number - T05BU02674
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - GRADING ALL
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 06/19/2006 | ANDREW CONNOR | NPPO | REVIEW | Denied | Submit stamped approved tentative plat including landscape and NPP plans, grading plan will be reviewed upon re-submittal of requested documents. |
| 08/03/2006 | ELIZABETH EBERBACH | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | TO: Rick Engineering SUBJECT: Tres Pueblos Este II S05-134 Grading Plan Resubmittal Review REVIEWER: Elizabeth Eberbach ACTIVITY NUMBERS: T05BU02674 SUMMARY: Engineering Division of Development Services Department reviewed the grading permit application resubmittal, including the revised grading plan, GRC Geotechnical Report and addenda, the revised SWPPP, revised Drainage Report, and response letters, and does not recommend approval of the grading plan or permit at this time. Assure the drainage report, grading plan, and SWPPP are modified to reflect the following comments: GRADING PLAN COMMENTS: 1) City of Tucson Development Standards (DS) Section No.2-03.5.2: The grading plan cannot be approved unless it is in conformance with an approved tentative plat. Due to the amount of remaining comments from the Tentative Plat and overlay reviews, further grading comments may be forthcoming. There are disturbance areas that need approval based on the overlay and Tentative Plat approvals. It is preferred that all W.A.S.H. Overlay and Tentative Plat comments be addressed and approved prior to resubmittal of the grading plan. Please note that after the second grading plan review, all subsequent reviews will be charged an hourly rate. 2) DS Sec.10-02.2.3: Address the following Drainage Report comments: a) For slope protection that includes weep holes, depict and label WSEL to ensure that the holes are above the flowlines; discuss in report. b) Elevations in CA A-1 are higher than bordering lots at southeast side of the project; provide clarification in drainage report how this watershed conveys stormwater. c) Drainage Report calculation section 7A shows gunite. Any slopes steeper than 1.5:1(H:V) shall be reinforced type of concrete per the geotechnical recommendations. Revise Drainage Report to reflect geotechnical recommendations. d) List the administrative / site address; 3) DS Sec.10-01.III.3.5.1.3.a, 10-02.14.2.6: Address the following geotechnical engineering comments on the grading plan: a) The geotechnical report provides recommendations for basin setbacks from pavements and building to basins. Label setbacks for each basin from WSEL to pavement and building setback. Where the setback encroaches the pavement or any proposed building footprint, revise basin design and layout to accommodate for the geotechnical restriction. b) The geotechnical addenda dated June 5, 2006 does not indicate sideyard setbacks from structures. The geotechnical report shall specifically provide geotechnical recommendations for minimum sideyard dimensions for positive drainage away from structures. c) Revise slope tables on sheets 2-5 to reflect slope grades and treatments per geotechnical report page 12. In particular, add that concrete slopes shall be reinforced. 4) DS Sec.11-01.4.1.C: Address the following general grading plan comments: a) Provide clarification/more cross sections for outlet designs based on the approved W.A.S.H. Ordinance overlay to thoroughly show how drainage channels will be constructed. Depending on approved W.A.S.H. overlay design, provide a planview and cross sectional detail of any drainage crossing for the basin drainage outlets at location of the elevated maintenance access road areas and show callouts on planview. b) Provide a detail of the sidewalk crossing at the drainage outlets from basins and show on planview. c) Provide at least one dimension for bottoms of basins for inspection purposes. d) On sheet 1, address the following comments: i) Regarding Grading Note 18, label basis of bearing on planview. Basis of bearings and benchmarks are standard information on grading plans and will be required for approval. ii) Update Grading Note 19, and provide a local benchmark. Label on planview local benchmark. iii) General Note 3 shall reference all addenda as well as the report. iv) Add general note regarding wall opening required for any screen walls and provide detail. v) DS Sec.3-01.5.1.4, 3-01.6.2.A: For safety reasons, there shall be no obstructions (vegetation, fill, or structures) placed between 30" to 72" within the SVT. Add a general note regarding SVT. vi) Add general note that special inspections are required for any cut-off walls, toedowns, and also at placement of both outlet pipe systems before completion of gabions. e) On sheet 3, address the following comments: i) Provide detail of trail proposed to be built over access road, showing that maintenance vehicles access is not obstructed. Label proposed materials. ii) Due to grading constraints to obtain 0.5% grade slopes for approximately 600 feet, explain and show in design how ponding along west channel will be prevented. f) On sheet 5, address the following comments: i) Elevations in CA A-1 are higher than bordering lots at southeast side of the project; provide clarification of depth and width of interceptor swale for detail R/8. ii) Provide detail of trail proposed to be built over access road, showing that maintenance vehicles access is not obstructed. Label proposed materials. iii) It was stated in the response letter that the shrine structure is located in the right-of-way; clarify location on planview by label entity as a structure to remain and also depicting the existing structure on planview in this area of the project with construction fencing for a no disturbance area. g) On sheet 6, address the following comments: i) Clarify where detail D is used for the project. ii) For details with weep holes, dimension minimum distance between bottom of weep hole and bottom of channel or basin or indicate WSEL to ensure that weep hole do not act as entrances for water to adversely impact structural integrity of slope stability protection. iii) Assure that details match slope recommendations tables on other sheets. For instance, table indicates slopes 1.5(H:V) are grouted riprap yet detail E shows a 1:1(H:V) slope. iv) For sections H, I, G, D, and E, slope grades are indicated as 1:1(H:V). The 1:1 slope callout appears to be in error; geotechnical report indicates a minimum slope of 1.5:1(H:V). h) On sheet 7, address the following comments: i) For sections 1-1 and 3-3 of detail K, and section 1-1 of detail J, slope grades are indicated as 1:1(H:V). The 1:1 slope callout appears to be in error; geotechnical report indicates a minimum slope of 1.5:1(H:V) unless reinforced type of concrete is used. ii) For detail M, reinforced concrete is called out for 1:1(H:V) slope; confirm with geotechnical engineer that the fibermesh is geotechnically acceptable for structural reinforcement for 1:1(H:V) slope stability for the soils at this site. iii) Where lots do not indicate 6 inches of fall within 10 feet from the foundations, swales should be clarified to ensure drainage away from the foundation. Clarify sections 2 of details K and J of sheet 7. Add minimum sideyard dimensions that match geotechnical recommendations for positive drainage away from structures. i) On sheet 8, add a general note to details U, V, S, and T that special inspections are required for any cut-off walls, toedowns, and also at placement of both outlet pipe systems before completion of gabions. 5) Typical Slope Treatment tables on sheets should be updated to reflect the geotechnical recommendations for slopes steeper than 1.5:1(H:V), such that the gunite or shotcrete is reinforced. 6) Per meeting with RICK and inspector on 3AUG06 and discussions regarding maintenance, revise detail L on sheet 7 to clarify that location of opening in the removable orifice plate. 7) For the drainage easement for a portion of Rodeo WASH, any areas that are to be maintained by the City of Tucson should reflect acceptable materials for pipe. There are 36" SRP called out on the plan and if RCP's are not provided, provide acceptance from TDOT for use of this material of pipe. 8) For future Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans, label receiving waters on a location map or other exhibit. After Tentative Plat approval, please submit 4 copies of the revised grading plan, 4 copies of the revised SWPPP, one copy of the revised drainage report, and any other supporting documents. If you have any questions, I can be reached at 791-5550, extension 2204. Elizabeth Eberbach, PE Civil Engineer Engineering Division Development Services |
| 08/09/2006 | MICHAEL ST. PAUL | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | Engineering and NPPO approvals required for zoning review. |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 08/28/2006 | GERARDO BONILLA | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 08/28/2006 | SUE REEVES | REJECT SHELF | Completed |